Kingship, to be Kingship, needs a certain cultural atmosphere to genuinely manifest.

This is quite right. We are not discussing a block of Lego, that could be indifferently substituted for some other block, or stuck onto an existing structure.

Monarchy is not just a different political structure but a different world, one where ideas like 'citizenship' and 'human rights' - on loan from the encyclopédistes, one assumes - have no place. There is no neo-classical edifice housing some scrap paper called a constitution. Instead, there is the patria - the blood and the soil and the ancestors - and the peculiar duties it bequeathes us.

False. Nobody can give what he doesn't have. The lesser never bestows dignity on the greater. It's the reverse.

My position is that dignity spontaneously arises in man, derived from his naturally-present freedom, and is susceptible to transfer by his will alone, specifically through the act of sacrificing that freedom. In the case of Monarchy, he transfers that dignity to his Monarch as a side-effect of his submission. This is why men tend to yearn for self-rule to the greatest extent possible: they have an intuitive sense of the dignity transfers involved, and are loathe to part with something of such true intrinsic value. The most dignified state for the common man would be enlightened anarchy, wherein all men were capable of ruling themselves justly and wisely.

Being subject to a Monarch is extremely demeaning to the common man, although it at least preserves dignity across the society as a whole, and has a certain grandeur in concentrating it into a single man. This is also why usury is often hated: the usurer stands to seize power over his fellow man and rob him in the process not merely of his wealth, but of his dignity as well. There is little less dignified than being a debtor, and men justly hate it.

This thread is just further proof of the deep distrust some libertarians actually hold for democracy and any real freedom, as they don't trust "the rabble" to hold power. Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind makes more and more sense every day.

This thread is just further proof of the deep distrust some libertarians actually hold for democracy and any real freedom, as they don't trust "the rabble" to hold power. Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind makes more and more sense every day.

Basically none of the people in this discussion are libertarian. I suppose you could label me a libertarian, but then I clearly stated my opposition to the idea of having a monarchy. Other than that, you must just be projecting here...

As for "the rabble" holding power, they never hold power. But the danger is that you get a bunch of decadent, ignorant people voting for a demagogue who proceeds to take away the liberties of all. From a libertarian perspective, opposition to this outcome is totally warranted. It does not therefore follow, however, that libertarians are opposed to democracy (quite the contrary).

To simplify: majority-rules democracy is bad, but democracy as a tool to decentralize power and keep the government accountable is good.

This thread is just further proof of the deep distrust some libertarians actually hold for democracy and any real freedom, as they don't trust "the rabble" to hold power. Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind makes more and more sense every day.

Go burrow yourself up your own asshole. We are entertaining a monarchy. Its called a discussion. Do you know what it means to entertain an idea separate from holding it?

And you are sniping from the sides to make partisan attacks because you are a political coward and intellectually infirm. (How's that for aggression, Unposter?)

All challenges to the status quo should be welcomed. We don't need anymore of this political mudslinging. The election is over, people.

Last edited by Kuros on Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total

Being subject to a Monarch is extremely demeaning to the common man, although it at least preserves dignity across the society as a whole, and has a certain grandeur in concentrating it into a single man. This is also why usury is often hated: the usurer stands to seize power over his fellow man and rob him in the process not merely of his wealth, but of his dignity as well.

I'm sorry, there's little individual dignity in 50% + 1. Our Monarchy would have a Parliament of democratically elected representatives. What we would add is GF's patria, something democracy lacks entirely. And we would merely trade the INDIRECT election of the Executive. Most Western democracies don't directly elect their President/Prime Minister, anyway.

This thread is just further proof of the deep distrust some libertarians actually hold for democracy and any real freedom, as they don't trust "the rabble" to hold power. Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind makes more and more sense every day.

Go burrow yourself up your own asshole. We are entertaining a monarchy. Its called a discussion. Do you know what it means to entertain an idea separate from holding it?

And you are sniping from the sides to make partisan attacks because you are a political coward and intellectually infirm. (How's that for aggression, Unposter?)

All challenges to the status quo should be welcomed. We don't need anymore of this political mudslinging. The election is over, people.

I'm wondering if Spartacist was on the board when Kuros mentioned in passing a year or two ago that he was attracted to/interested in/amenable to (???) to monarchy...dictatorship...leviathan?

Just saying.

Given that far far more than one far right figure recently has said he favors stripping the right of the public to elect Senators, is it really accurate to deny that 'some' libertarians/'movement conservatives'/conservatives have a deep distrust of democracy?

No. No, it isn't unfair. It happens to be a fact that elements of the right reject democracy and yearn for some sort of authoritarian regime. Sad really, but true.

Being subject to a Monarch is extremely demeaning to the common man, although it at least preserves dignity across the society as a whole, and has a certain grandeur in concentrating it into a single man. This is also why usury is often hated: the usurer stands to seize power over his fellow man and rob him in the process not merely of his wealth, but of his dignity as well.

I'm sorry, there's little individual dignity in 50% + 1. Our Monarchy would have a Parliament of democratically elected representatives. What we would add is GF's patria, something democracy lacks entirely. And we would merely trade the INDIRECT election of the Executive. Most Western democracies don't directly elect their President/Prime Minister, anyway.

None of this really sounds much like a true monarchy though. It sounds like you want some kind of hybrid system where there is a parliament, and a monarch who severely emasculated. It seems to me that the monarch would either become a figure head, like most current European monarchs, or would rule like Putin, where there are theoretical checks and balances, but in practice the leader has almost free reign. Also, the only way to get rid of a monarch usually revolves around cutting their heads off, which leads to complications.

Being subject to a Monarch is extremely demeaning to the common man, although it at least preserves dignity across the society as a whole, and has a certain grandeur in concentrating it into a single man. This is also why usury is often hated: the usurer stands to seize power over his fellow man and rob him in the process not merely of his wealth, but of his dignity as well.

I'm sorry, there's little individual dignity in 50% + 1. Our Monarchy would have a Parliament of democratically elected representatives. What we would add is GF's patria, something democracy lacks entirely. And we would merely trade the INDIRECT election of the Executive. Most Western democracies don't directly elect their President/Prime Minister, anyway.

None of this really sounds much like a true monarchy though. It sounds like you want some kind of hybrid system where there is a parliament, and a monarch who severely emasculated.

I have to agree. Absolute divine right is not mandatory, and popular elements can and should be present, but Kuros' vision concedes too much to the republican principle. He seems limited by certain modern notions, such as rule of law and citizenship, for example. I would like to discuss this notion of rule of law.

It is true that man has an immense dignity, by virtue of being in imago Dei, whence his much-abused freedom of will. I use religious terms, but you can see that there is some common ground here.

Where we cannot agree is the assumption that submission and dignity are somehow at odds, that submission is an affront to dignity per se. This would only follow if we assumed that all men were equal. But they are not, and so, on the contrary, it follows that for the inferior, dignity consists precisely in submitting to the superior, in all things but Sin. And that also goes for the King.

Being subject to a Monarch is extremely demeaning to the common man, although it at least preserves dignity across the society as a whole, and has a certain grandeur in concentrating it into a single man. This is also why usury is often hated: the usurer stands to seize power over his fellow man and rob him in the process not merely of his wealth, but of his dignity as well.

I'm sorry, there's little individual dignity in 50% + 1.

Well, I it's not quite as straightforward as that. Is there much dignity in a no-holds barred, no lie is too ridiculous, no fallacy is too embarrassing, data doesn't matter style of ultra-partisan "our primary goal is to make the opposition lose and to keep seats" 50% + 1? No, there isn't much. But there's plenty of dignity to be had in reasoning our way towards genuine consensus in order to achieve a broadly-shared vision of how society should be. In short, there's a huge dignity-spectrum when it comes to participatory politics.

Could submission to a Monarch in a particular scenario exceed the dignity present in participation in some of the more petty configurations of participatory politics? Perhaps so, that rests largely on the shoulders of the common man. But at the highest heights, it very much seems to me that, barring our hypothetical enlightened anarchy wherein all men do good of their own volition, all men being of at least great enough virtue and learning to seriously and truly participate in the reasoning process seems more dignified than those men largely submitting to one virtuous individual. Titus says all men are not created equal, and that is true, but most men have the potential for good judgment, comprehension, compassion, and wisdom to a sufficient degree that a broad "depoliticization of the population" is not strictly required; allowing participation uplifts, so long as that participation is both genuine, and the participant is properly prepared (this, more than anything, is where our own society suffers).

Kuros wrote:

Our Monarchy would have a Parliament of democratically elected representatives.

Yes, but if the Monarch is dominant, then participation has still, relatively speaking, given way to submission. Titus' way of putting it -- the democratic element being there to let people 'blow off some steam' -- seems to be a good fit, while the Monarch remains the serious decision maker. Now it's possible to shove Titus aside on that and put in place a serious parliament or legislature, but the more you do that, the more you tip the balance of our little political system towards reverting to true participatory politics, so how much can you get away with, and moreover, how much do you really want to get away with before you've lost the spirit of what you're trying to achieve?

Kuros wrote:

What we would add is GF's patria, something democracy lacks entirely.

I think it's possible to have that in the absence of a Monarch as well. The Romans had a strong sense of patria even during the periods wherein they were clearly anti-monarchical, for instance. I'm not sure this is something that can be politically engineered though.

Kuros wrote:

And we would merely trade the INDIRECT election of the Executive. Most Western democracies don't directly elect their President/Prime Minister, anyway.

I actually would not necessarily have an especial problem with the indirect election of the President, just as I wouldn't have been particularly inclined to agitate for the 17th Amendment if it didn't already exist. Some degree of indirect appointment in the system is perfectly alright. It's the degree of power that said features of the system are privy to, and the distance of the selection process from the common man, that is decisive. That said, I thought you mentioned hereditary monarchy, which -- even with a potential check in place for defectives -- is not really indirect election.

Where we cannot agree is the assumption that submission and dignity are somehow at odds, that submission is an affront to dignity per se. This would only follow if we assumed that all men were equal. But they are not, and so, on the contrary, it follows that for the inferior, dignity consists precisely in submitting to the superior, in all things but Sin. And that also goes for the King.

I agree man is unequal. I don't agree that this inequality necessitates submission. Indeed, for the inferior to submit is to willfully embrace inferiority, rather than attempt to improve himself (and make no mistake, when it comes to matters of judgment and virtue -- which are the relevant factors here -- man is capable of improving himself).

Now, perhaps there's something I cannot empathize with here. I mentioned some time back I'd been giving thought to an almost caste-like phenomenon among humans, wherein a variety of fundamental natures are present instead of a single shared one, and I'm still thinking about that. Maybe I can't empathize with this whole "it's best to submit to your betters" notion because it's simply not in me to do so (and has not been since my youngest years). Perhaps those who clamor for Kingship are expressing a component of their being I simply don't partake in, or my reticence to submission is expressing a component of my being they don't partake in. I don't know. But until or unless I was certain that it lied within another man's nature to submit, I could not with good intentions recommend it.

Indeed, for the inferior to submit is to willfully embrace inferiority,

Yes, but the argument that this prevents him from improving himself is a serious blunder. Only look at a student and his master. There we can see plainly that the recognition and willful embrace of inferiority is the most efficient, if not actually the only possible path to improvement.

The analogy has limits, since the student's goal is eventually to achieve independence from the master: One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.

You may say I am assuming, without warrant, that the King is akin to a master, with skills such as judgment and virtue to teach, while his subject is akin to his student. This would be to mistake what I am saying. It is not the King as individual who is the master, and submission to him is not conditional to his personal merits. It is his function - as temporal principle of Order - that demands submission, and it is the embrace of one's own function within this Order that works the only real self-improvement.

Fox wrote:

an almost caste-like phenomenon among humans, wherein a variety of fundamental natures are present instead of a single shared one

This is certainly the case, though I would not use the word nature. Human nature is one.

Quote:

Perhaps those who clamor for Kingship are expressing a component of their being I simply don't partake in, or my reticence to submission is expressing a component of my being they don't partake in. I don't know.

I gather that you wish to ascertain your caste. Consider that rebelliousness is traditionally associated with the Shudra.

Indeed, for the inferior to submit is to willfully embrace inferiority,

Yes, but the argument that this prevents him from improving himself is a serious blunder. Only look at a student and his master.

I anticipated this response (though I thought it would come by example of father and son), and you've already provided my own counter to it as you said:

GF wrote:

The analogy has limits, since the student's goal is eventually to achieve independence from the master: One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.

In submission to both parent and teacher, one temporarily entrusts their dignity while they are being polished into a state where-in they can do it credit. The end result is always freedom and, correspondingly, the reclamation of what was entrusted. That's a far different thing than indefinite submission to a Monarch.

GF wrote:

It is not the King as individual who is the master, and submission to him is not conditional to his personal merits. It is his function - as temporal principle of Order - that demands submission, and it is the embrace of one's own function within this Order that works the only real self-improvement.

I don't see Monarchy that way, and I don't think anything about historic Kingship gives us cause to interpret Monarchy that way. I understand you genuinely believe this, and I don't wish to be derisive so I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but when I read this, I see justification, not explanation. One can behave in a fashion conducive to the social order without submitting at all, much less submitting to a specific individual acting as the representative of said order. Indeed, the Monarch himself must behave in such a fashion to be effective!

GF wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps those who clamor for Kingship are expressing a component of their being I simply don't partake in, or my reticence to submission is expressing a component of my being they don't partake in. I don't know.

I gather that you wish to ascertain your caste. Consider that rebelliousness is traditionally associated with the Shudra.

Not especially. I'm more interested in broad understanding than petty specifics when it comes to this matter. My nature will shine through of its own volition. It's understanding of the world at large which requires effort, and accordingly, that's where my focus need lie.

That said, the rigidity of the Indian Caste System, and fact that it eventually devolved into a matter of petty hereditary status, leaves me suspicious of it; competency and certain traits seem to be hereditary to some degree, but my own experience leads me to believe that if something like caste exists, it is independent of -- or at best, very loosely related to -- heredity. I detect the mundanity of materialistic personal enrichment at the root of this particular system, and as such, do not think especially much of it; there may be some truths buried in there, but there's a lot of filthy self-gratification, materialistic greed, and hunger for power heaped atop them.